5 ms·

Instead of banning cashless businesses because it's discriminatory to the unbanked perhaps they should focus on reducing discrimination in the banking sector an

by dools 3y ago

Instead of banning cashless businesses because it's discriminatory to the unbanked perhaps they should focus on reducing discrimination in the banking sector and providing a publicly run electronic payment system.

PumpkinSpice 3y ago
In that position, the government would inevitably try to meddle. Look up Operation Choke Point back in the Obama years, when the government pressured banks to cut off a variety of "undesirable" businesses, such as payday lenders, gun dealers, and so on. Cash serves an important purpose. It is a safety valve in case of such extrajudicial overreach. Yeah, because it's private, it also enables some bad stuff (tax dodging, drug trade), but the same can be said about not requiring ID verification to use the internet.
- dools 3y ago
  Operation Choke Point was run by the government within the framework of the existing banking sector. It was enacted by DoJ (one part of the government) then: "In August 2014, U.S. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer introduced a bill that would limit law enforcement's ability to restrict access to the banking system as a response against Operation Choke Point.[12]" So it was stopped by Congress, another part of government. The existence or non-existence of cash wouldn't have made a difference to the ability of pay day lenders or firearms dealers to continue operating because I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be able to get access to cash to conduct their business unless they had bank accounts! My point is that a government supplied electronic payment system would make no difference to the ability of a government to engage in anything more or less nefarious than they can already do, and the legislative process is capable of dealing with that (and if it's not, cash won't save you either).
  - PumpkinSpice 3y ago
    I'm having trouble parsing your argument, to be honest. In a cashless society, the government has a near-absolute power to shut down or penalize any economic activity it deems undesirable - whether that activity is criminal or not. In a society that permits cash, the government's reach is still long, but not nearly as complete. Unless you always expect governments to be perfectly benevolent and well-attuned to the needs of all social groups, it seems prudent to fight for cash to remain a valid payment choice.
    - junofan 3y ago
      I think the overarching point was that you should trust the government with anything because they have the power to make laws, and if they wanted to make laws that harmed you they would just do that. I disagree, however.
      - dools 3y ago
        No the overarching point was stated pretty clearly as: > ... a government supplied electronic payment system would make no difference to the ability of a government to engage in anything more or less nefarious than they can already do
    - dools 3y ago
      > In a cashless society, the government has a near-absolute power to shut down or penalize any economic activity it deems undesirable - whether that activity is criminal or not. Evidently it can do so in a society with cash also, eg. Operation Choke Point.
- shwaj 3y ago
  Wandering a bit astray now, but Operation Choke Point 2.0 is currently underway, with the goal of debanking the cryptocurrency industry. Same playbook, different set of undesirable businesses.
  - ajkjk 3y ago
    Glad to hear it.
    - shwaj 3y ago
      Yes, let’s cheer on the precedent of unelected bureaucrats exerting control over things we don’t like. That precedent will surely never come back to affect something that we do like </s>
      - ajkjk 3y ago
        That's .. like... the point of government? To do management-y things for the rest of us? It's not, like, a robot. It's people. We can talk to them and influence them.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Nearly every democracy on the world manages to put on their constitution that the government won't meddle with private business without due process. And almost all of those manage to follow that rule. I'm pretty sure the US can do the same if the system is run by the government. That kind of thing only happens there because it's run by private companies.
  - whelp_24 3y ago
    The U.S has a lot of things in its constitution, it's like the original constitutional democracy (the UK is uncodified btw). Your trust in government is far far too high.
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      > The U.S has a lot of things in its constitution You know... I'm a Brazilian. Our constitution has something around 200 pages. The reactions of US people about their government working is really surprising and hard to understand to me. Anyway, I'm sure that e.g. your postal service does not discriminate between legal business, because there's a rule forbidding it (that one I know that exists). Why do you think such a rule won't work for financial transfers?
      - whelp_24 3y ago
        Rules only work if they exist and they are followed. There is no evidence such a law would be created, we can not even get net neutrality. There is not a lot of evidence this law would be followed, corruption happens all the time, especially in background type things like electronic transactions. Electronic transactions aren't anonymous, and the US certainly doesn't need more surveillance.
Larrikin 3y ago
Why not both? I would hope the government could do two things at once. There's no reason the post office couldn't also function as a basic bank, the same way it does in many other countries, while eliminating a discriminatory business practice.
- dools 3y ago
  Yes a postal savings system would be a way to provide a government run electronic payments system. The point is that there are many benefits for businesses to not accepting cash payments, especially if they're maintaining the service for a decreasing portion of their customers. Also, if customers had access to a government run cashless payment system (the same privilege that private banks enjoy) then they might find themselves less interested in carrying cash in the first place.
SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
I agree that the state should do more to alleviate the situation of being unbanked, but this is a major win for the unbanked that will offer immediate relief and comes with a number of other benefits for all different kinds of stakeholders. It's a non-brainer starting point even if your only goal was helping the unbanked
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  The first step to helping the unbanked is removing banks from the picture altogether. They are technically wholly unnecessary in the 21st century for the purposes of sending/receiving/keeping a running total of funds in an electronic database entry ascribed to an entity.
  - olliej 3y ago
    Uh huh, so we all keep money in a safe/home? Or are you going to propose yet another wildly unworkable cryptoscam?
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      A bank does not keep your money in a safe. Cash is a very, very small portion of money. We are mostly just editing numbers in various databases over and over. I would propose the federal government offer an inalienable electronic money account as a constitutionally guaranteed right.
      - alphabetting 3y ago
        I get the sentiment but in practice I think many would be against the govt being in possession of their funds given attitudes towards the IRS
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Many would do well to already assume the government is in control of their funds. Pretty sure if the government wants to freeze your funds at any financial institution, the financial institution is going to let them. See what happened in Canada. This is where > inalienable electronic money account as a constitutionally guaranteed right. this comes in. It should be impossible to take away someone’s ability to electronically send and receive money.
jonhohle 3y ago
The answer to unfairness is not let the government take it over. That is unless you want to raise costs for everyone, eliminate all competition, and end up with the same institutional problems.
- dools 3y ago
  Note that I'm not suggesting we eliminate private credit creation or that the government issue loans, what I'm advocating is a government supplied and run electronic payment system. They already supply a payment system (cash), it's just not electronic. Last time I checked we're not hurting for lack of competition in the "minting currency" industry, and in fact when this was competitive (ie. before the Federal Reserve was formed) the US was a total shit show and it couldn't get anything done.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    FedNow is a payment system by the government providing the rails, but we'll have to see how it evolves. Zelle's implementation/rollout, which is a similar product, but owned/operated by the banks/corporations, has been messy. Venmo, and CashApp, however, are fairly popular.
    - dools 3y ago
      Isn't FedNow more like the NPP in Australia that enables things like Osko and PayID? It's not quite the same as a postal savings system because the customer still holds their primary transaction account with a private bank. If, instead, customers have their primary transaction account with a government run service (the reason it's called a postal savings system is because historically this was the post office) it would mean that the government is essentially giving retail access to the central bank transaction clearing service.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - fragmede 3y ago
supertrope 3y ago
Make access to a bank account a right. Take all of the unbanked/unprofitable customers and assign them to banks weighted by each bank’s market share. No matter their Chexsystems report status.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Another move in the wrong direction. Why should private businesses be selectively shouldering the burden of society? Mandate the USPS (federal government) to offer electronic money accounts to everyone.
  - blackshaw 3y ago
    Maybe we should also mandate the USDA to bake same-sex wedding cakes.
  - supertrope 3y ago
    This is done several other industries. Hospital emergency departments cannot refuse critical care. Most states mandate carrying car insurance and also have an assigned risk pool of last resort for people who cannot get a policy normally. The benefit of a service mandate on private businesses is that it avoids having to set up a government retail-facing firm. Starting a public option is re-inventing the wheel. Either it stays starved of funding so it sucks, or it gets momentum and existing firms complain about unfair competition from the government.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      > Hospital emergency departments cannot refuse critical care. Yes, and the government’s hesitation in properly compensating them (and choosing to avoid owning/operating them) is a major source of myriad problems. The government tasked them with a huge responsibility, gave them insufficient funds, and watched as they flail about teetering on the edge of failure. >Most states mandate carrying car insurance and also have an assigned risk pool of last resort for people who cannot get a policy normally. This is not comparable. > The benefit of a service mandate on private businesses is that it avoids having to set up a government retail-facing firm. Starting a public option is re-inventing the wheel. The government should have a retail facing firm, we are its customers. And it already does, with locations everywhere. Called USPS. And it already is tasked with identity verification duties for passport issuance. The only thing left is to bolt on the backend of an online bank. Go ahead and just buy a mid size ine one if that makes it easier, they are not very expensive.
jaza 3y ago
The government provides a public payment system that's accessible to all and that protects privacy. It's called cash.
- dools 3y ago
  Yes, that's not electronic.
zen928 3y ago
Instead of pretending that you get to establish the rules for how your business receives transactions VS the defined systems, standards and legal accommodations that you're already implicitly and explicitly agreeing to when establishing your corporate entity, they should follow the established standards and look to engage in legal activism that aligns with their interests instead of blatantly violating the law.

by dools 3y ago

PumpkinSpice 3y ago

In that position, the government would inevitably try to meddle. Look up Operation Choke Point back in the Obama years, when the government pressured banks to cut off a variety of "undesirable" businesses, such as payday lenders, gun dealers, and so on. Cash serves an important purpose. It is a safety valve in case of such extrajudicial overreach. Yeah, because it's private, it also enables some bad stuff (tax dodging, drug trade), but the same can be said about not requiring ID verification to use the internet.

dools 3y ago
Operation Choke Point was run by the government within the framework of the existing banking sector. It was enacted by DoJ (one part of the government) then: "In August 2014, U.S. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer introduced a bill that would limit law enforcement's ability to restrict access to the banking system as a response against Operation Choke Point.[12]" So it was stopped by Congress, another part of government. The existence or non-existence of cash wouldn't have made a difference to the ability of pay day lenders or firearms dealers to continue operating because I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be able to get access to cash to conduct their business unless they had bank accounts! My point is that a government supplied electronic payment system would make no difference to the ability of a government to engage in anything more or less nefarious than they can already do, and the legislative process is capable of dealing with that (and if it's not, cash won't save you either).
- PumpkinSpice 3y ago
  I'm having trouble parsing your argument, to be honest. In a cashless society, the government has a near-absolute power to shut down or penalize any economic activity it deems undesirable - whether that activity is criminal or not. In a society that permits cash, the government's reach is still long, but not nearly as complete. Unless you always expect governments to be perfectly benevolent and well-attuned to the needs of all social groups, it seems prudent to fight for cash to remain a valid payment choice.
  - junofan 3y ago
    I think the overarching point was that you should trust the government with anything because they have the power to make laws, and if they wanted to make laws that harmed you they would just do that. I disagree, however.
    - dools 3y ago
      No the overarching point was stated pretty clearly as: > ... a government supplied electronic payment system would make no difference to the ability of a government to engage in anything more or less nefarious than they can already do
  - dools 3y ago
    > In a cashless society, the government has a near-absolute power to shut down or penalize any economic activity it deems undesirable - whether that activity is criminal or not. Evidently it can do so in a society with cash also, eg. Operation Choke Point.
shwaj 3y ago
Wandering a bit astray now, but Operation Choke Point 2.0 is currently underway, with the goal of debanking the cryptocurrency industry. Same playbook, different set of undesirable businesses.
- ajkjk 3y ago
  Glad to hear it.
  - shwaj 3y ago
    Yes, let’s cheer on the precedent of unelected bureaucrats exerting control over things we don’t like. That precedent will surely never come back to affect something that we do like </s>
    - ajkjk 3y ago
      That's .. like... the point of government? To do management-y things for the rest of us? It's not, like, a robot. It's people. We can talk to them and influence them.
marcosdumay 3y ago
Nearly every democracy on the world manages to put on their constitution that the government won't meddle with private business without due process. And almost all of those manage to follow that rule. I'm pretty sure the US can do the same if the system is run by the government. That kind of thing only happens there because it's run by private companies.
- whelp_24 3y ago
  The U.S has a lot of things in its constitution, it's like the original constitutional democracy (the UK is uncodified btw). Your trust in government is far far too high.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    > The U.S has a lot of things in its constitution You know... I'm a Brazilian. Our constitution has something around 200 pages. The reactions of US people about their government working is really surprising and hard to understand to me. Anyway, I'm sure that e.g. your postal service does not discriminate between legal business, because there's a rule forbidding it (that one I know that exists). Why do you think such a rule won't work for financial transfers?
    - whelp_24 3y ago
      Rules only work if they exist and they are followed. There is no evidence such a law would be created, we can not even get net neutrality. There is not a lot of evidence this law would be followed, corruption happens all the time, especially in background type things like electronic transactions. Electronic transactions aren't anonymous, and the US certainly doesn't need more surveillance.

Larrikin 3y ago

Why not both? I would hope the government could do two things at once. There's no reason the post office couldn't also function as a basic bank, the same way it does in many other countries, while eliminating a discriminatory business practice.

dools 3y ago
Yes a postal savings system would be a way to provide a government run electronic payments system. The point is that there are many benefits for businesses to not accepting cash payments, especially if they're maintaining the service for a decreasing portion of their customers. Also, if customers had access to a government run cashless payment system (the same privilege that private banks enjoy) then they might find themselves less interested in carrying cash in the first place.

SuperNinKenDo 3y ago

I agree that the state should do more to alleviate the situation of being unbanked, but this is a major win for the unbanked that will offer immediate relief and comes with a number of other benefits for all different kinds of stakeholders. It's a non-brainer starting point even if your only goal was helping the unbanked

lotsofpulp 3y ago
The first step to helping the unbanked is removing banks from the picture altogether. They are technically wholly unnecessary in the 21st century for the purposes of sending/receiving/keeping a running total of funds in an electronic database entry ascribed to an entity.
- olliej 3y ago
  Uh huh, so we all keep money in a safe/home? Or are you going to propose yet another wildly unworkable cryptoscam?
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    A bank does not keep your money in a safe. Cash is a very, very small portion of money. We are mostly just editing numbers in various databases over and over. I would propose the federal government offer an inalienable electronic money account as a constitutionally guaranteed right.
    - alphabetting 3y ago
      I get the sentiment but in practice I think many would be against the govt being in possession of their funds given attitudes towards the IRS
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Many would do well to already assume the government is in control of their funds. Pretty sure if the government wants to freeze your funds at any financial institution, the financial institution is going to let them. See what happened in Canada. This is where > inalienable electronic money account as a constitutionally guaranteed right. this comes in. It should be impossible to take away someone’s ability to electronically send and receive money.

jonhohle 3y ago

The answer to unfairness is not let the government take it over. That is unless you want to raise costs for everyone, eliminate all competition, and end up with the same institutional problems.

dools 3y ago
Note that I'm not suggesting we eliminate private credit creation or that the government issue loans, what I'm advocating is a government supplied and run electronic payment system. They already supply a payment system (cash), it's just not electronic. Last time I checked we're not hurting for lack of competition in the "minting currency" industry, and in fact when this was competitive (ie. before the Federal Reserve was formed) the US was a total shit show and it couldn't get anything done.
- fragmede 3y ago
  FedNow is a payment system by the government providing the rails, but we'll have to see how it evolves. Zelle's implementation/rollout, which is a similar product, but owned/operated by the banks/corporations, has been messy. Venmo, and CashApp, however, are fairly popular.
  - dools 3y ago
    Isn't FedNow more like the NPP in Australia that enables things like Osko and PayID? It's not quite the same as a postal savings system because the customer still holds their primary transaction account with a private bank. If, instead, customers have their primary transaction account with a government run service (the reason it's called a postal savings system is because historically this was the post office) it would mean that the government is essentially giving retail access to the central bank transaction clearing service.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - fragmede 3y ago

supertrope 3y ago

Make access to a bank account a right. Take all of the unbanked/unprofitable customers and assign them to banks weighted by each bank’s market share. No matter their Chexsystems report status.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Another move in the wrong direction. Why should private businesses be selectively shouldering the burden of society? Mandate the USPS (federal government) to offer electronic money accounts to everyone.
- blackshaw 3y ago
  Maybe we should also mandate the USDA to bake same-sex wedding cakes.
- supertrope 3y ago
  This is done several other industries. Hospital emergency departments cannot refuse critical care. Most states mandate carrying car insurance and also have an assigned risk pool of last resort for people who cannot get a policy normally. The benefit of a service mandate on private businesses is that it avoids having to set up a government retail-facing firm. Starting a public option is re-inventing the wheel. Either it stays starved of funding so it sucks, or it gets momentum and existing firms complain about unfair competition from the government.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > Hospital emergency departments cannot refuse critical care. Yes, and the government’s hesitation in properly compensating them (and choosing to avoid owning/operating them) is a major source of myriad problems. The government tasked them with a huge responsibility, gave them insufficient funds, and watched as they flail about teetering on the edge of failure. >Most states mandate carrying car insurance and also have an assigned risk pool of last resort for people who cannot get a policy normally. This is not comparable. > The benefit of a service mandate on private businesses is that it avoids having to set up a government retail-facing firm. Starting a public option is re-inventing the wheel. The government should have a retail facing firm, we are its customers. And it already does, with locations everywhere. Called USPS. And it already is tasked with identity verification duties for passport issuance. The only thing left is to bolt on the backend of an online bank. Go ahead and just buy a mid size ine one if that makes it easier, they are not very expensive.

jaza 3y ago

The government provides a public payment system that's accessible to all and that protects privacy. It's called cash.

dools 3y ago
Yes, that's not electronic.

zen928 3y ago

Instead of pretending that you get to establish the rules for how your business receives transactions VS the defined systems, standards and legal accommodations that you're already implicitly and explicitly agreeing to when establishing your corporate entity, they should follow the established standards and look to engage in legal activism that aligns with their interests instead of blatantly violating the law.